Saturday, May 21, 2011

On a rainy afternoon in Charlotte this past week, two friends got together to discuss why the other was wrong about homosexuality.

Kate Murphy and Robert Austell have had this conversation before – usually over the coffee they enjoy each week while catching up on their work and lives. But this time, they chose to disagree in front of 500 or so of their colleagues – ministers and church elders of the Charlotte Presbytery.

Kate is the pastor at Hickory Grove Presbyterian Church, and she is in favor of Amendment 10-A, which changes her denomination’s constitution and allows for gays and lesbians to be ordained ministers and elders. Robert is pastor at Good Shepherd Presbyterian church, and he is against the amendment, which the seven-county Charlotte Presbytery voted on Tuesday afternoon.

Going into that vote, the amendment already had been backed by a majority of presbyteries across the country, so Tuesday’s vote might have been considered merely symbolic. But as Kate and Robert know, discussions about homosexuality are anything but.

It’s a debate that not only has divided their denomination, but their community and their country. It’s also a debate that we’ve largely ceded to the extremes among us, to the shouters pointing at each other from across the road, to the pedophiles and bigots, if you believe what each side says so loudly.

Which is why Robert wanted to have one more conversation.

On Tuesday afternoon, he and Kate sat in the front of the shell-shaped sanctuary at Albemarle Road Presbyterian. They were scheduled to speak first, before those in attendance were invited to line up at the microphones on opposite sides of the room – left side for those in favor of 10-A, right side for those against.

A couple months back, while they were doing some work for the Presbytery, Robert had asked Kate if she would speak on this day. Kate initially said no – she already had talked about ordaining homosexuals at a similar meeting two years ago. But Robert wanted them to discuss not only what they believed about homosexuality, but about each other.

“She loves Jesus Christ and the Church,” he told the audience Tuesday, speaking first. He said he and Kate were friends who had much in common. “I would have her as my pastor,” he said.

Said Kate of Robert: “He has great integrity.” And: “I greatly appreciate the way he interprets Scripture.” And this: “I commend to you to listen deeply to what he has to say.”

Each also made their case eloquently. Kate challenged the nine Bible passages commonly used in the condemnation of homosexuality. Some passages, she said, were about lust, not sexual orientation, and none applied to people in committed, monogamous relationships. Robert urged that Christians not turn their backs on homosexuals, but he said that Kate’s challenges ultimately didn’t answer all of the questions the Bible presented about sin and sexual boundaries.

All of which wasn’t very different than the arguments others have made for and against homosexuality. But what they wanted to get across, said Robert, was this: “We really want you to listen to the other person, because we respect that person.”

And when they were done, they sat together again as others spoke for and against Amendment 10-A, which eventually passed, 162-154. It was a passionate and polite debate – perhaps because Kate and Robert had set a tone, but also because of something else they want their community to know: that good, smart, faithful people on both sides are struggling and sorting through this debate.

One conversation. A different conversation. It’s not that hard to have, if you’re humble enough to understand you might not be right. Which, by the way, Kate and Robert each know. And so they talk. And they listen.

“I think everybody is trying to be faithful,” says Kate. “I think the trick is to be loving.”

I don't care what these two people had to say to each other. This story is already a week or more past and unless you're a member of their particular group of Presbyterians, it's now mostly unimportant to the point of irrelevance.

There are plenty of more important issues locally to cover, such as:

- the continuing saga of Harry Jones- the local property tax rate. For our money, do we get good return in Charlotte Mecklenburg? Is local governance and money management on a par (or not) with similarly-situated cities nationwide? - The allocation of highway funds and the so-called equity formula and how that may or may not change under GOP leadership in the NC Legislature-The increasingly worn appearance of Charlotte Douglas International Airport, the region's essential economic driver. The original building is nearly 30 years old and looks it. The baggage claim area is a disgrace.

There are more important issues within GLBT civil rights to cover, such as:

-the implementation of the repeal of DADT.-the marriage equality cases headed for the SCOTUS, argued by Ted Olson and David Boies-the groundswell of support for marriage equality in New York by highly conservative, GOP-funding New York City financiers.

What is this papers obsession with homosexuality? The watering down of morals seems to have become their latest obsession. No wonder the layoffs and decreases in revenue continue to be the only things that are a giver oner on South Tryon Street.

Good morning, all. A reminder to keep your comments free of name calling. Thx.

Anon, 7:40 (Ozy): Your topic suggestions are good ones, but I picked mine because the moment happened just a few days ago, and it's relevant to more than the faith community. These are discussions happening everywhere.

I just don't know why we can't let people live their lives, as long as they are not interfering in someone else's life. We know people who've been in committed relationships for 25, 40, 50 years who are more commmitted than those who have been legally married in heterosexual relationships. Homosexual people are not legally bound in their relationships and that's not a good thing. I believe they would be together for that long and more if they were legally bound. It's all about committment. Who cares what goes on in a bedroom between two consenting adults? It's none of anyone's business. It's legal for same sex couples to live together, own property together and nobody ever comes out against them. But you let 2 people of the same sex come and buy property together and live together in a committed relationship and let others know, and immediately they are not welcomed in churches that they've attended for years prior. Why can't we just get along and worship the same God together and obey the commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself" and treat them like you would want to be treated.This debate will never be over, but we must treat each other kindly and we need to be fair and give all the rights to those who choose a same sex partner, bdcause gays and lesbians as well as same sex partners, are losing benefits that they would receive if they were legally married. They work everyday and pay taxes everyday, yet they are not allowed the same benefits.And that's just plain wrong.That's my opinion and I will stick to it, so please don't bash me.

People in the south and Charlotte particularly will always rush to click on gays + religion. So of course certain (not all) tongues will wag and continue to wag about this sliver of Protestants and their decision a week ago.

Any newspaper worth its ink should inform its readers, not hand them yet another venue to amplify their petty disputes. You could have generated just as many mouseclicks by discussing the conservative NYC financiers.

BTW: Every other website this morning has the news on Mitch Daniels' decision not to run for the GOP nomination. Even the N&O. Where is the CO?

I am sorry to persist BUT, and there's always a but:the Church of Rome, the only true church, does not tolerate gay activity, iota, among parishioners. Period. Finished. You may talk of gay but use the member and you'll end up in H---.What the vestry does & why, God only knows.

Disagreement isn't bashing or homopohobic as the gay community often accuses others of doing/being when they disagree with thier positiom. I remember being at a 4th of July event up in Asheville a few years back when my then four year old Son who obviously had no idea what homosexuality was at the time asked me why two men were laying down on a blanket and kissing. If a four year old knows something is abnormal about this behavior why can't the adults among us?

Thanks, Ozy. You make a terrific point about the challenges writers face when choosing topics. If I'm going to write about a general subject, I'd better bring something different to the table. I thought the moment this week allowed me to bring a couple of points to the discussion that I hadn't seen previously in the O.

What heterosexuals worry about is that lewdness and ridiculous drag-style behavior will have to be accepted as the norm since it is widely accepted in the homosexual lifestyle. There's a broad range of homosexuals from the normal and decent acting and looking types to the outlandish, anything goes types. The lewdness side of homosexuality should never be tolerated in society, but homosexuals in general, should. I believe this is what the Bible was referring to that Kate mentioned, re: lust vs sexual orientation.

Interesting article. I appreciate the positive dialogue, rather than the finger-pointing and righteous moral demagoguery.

To answer the question posed by a few about the slippery slope of "allowing" homosexuality in churches, the key difference is that homosexuality is an orientation that you are born with (God-given, that exists in as much as 20% or more of the public). You are not born a polygamist or bigamist or S&M enthusiast. You ARE, however, born with an orientation, whether that be hetero or homosexual.

Disagreement isn't bashing or homopohobic as the gay community often accuses others of doing/being when they disagree with thier positiom. I remember being at a 4th of July event up in Asheville a few years back when my then four year old Son who obviously had no idea what homosexuality was at the time asked me why two men were laying down on a blanket and kissing. If a four year old knows something is abnormal about this behavior why can't the adults among us? MAY 22, 2011 8:36 AM

HeyTodd, if your child asked that, it was because he was curious and hadn't seen it before,presumably because his parents are straight. He might have sensed your disaproval too.FYI, the correct answer is, "because they love each other."

The reality is this...homosexuality is a lifestyle CHOICE. There will be a bunch of people that disagree, but how many people who were once gay are now straight? Our society is now demanding that we give into everyone's CHOICES no matter what they are. Think not? How does an organization like NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) continue to exist? Oh, and what are the men in that group? GAY! Homosexuality is a deviant behavior that is anything but normal. Those that think is it normal need to have their morals checked.

If so we have too many people in jail for too many things that they were born with, and we need to start changing a lot of laws. Not sure how we are going to protect some of the most innocent in our society though.

And as far as God making us that way I guess he makes the killers and the like and those are not choices we have a decision in making either.

All of you have good points. Keep that in mind those of you who have good jobs it only because God created you with a good job in mind and College and the like.

See how everything external is the cause of your life, and your rights are and should be dependent on what is in your mind, and not on a physical disability, or if you are female, male or age, color etc the usual things people can use today.

To the poster who claims that almost 20% of the population is homosexual, get real. This condition, orientation, or whatever you term it, afflicts only about 2% of males and even fewer females. That's the real figure, though gay activists inflate it way beyond that.

Source: Pscychologist James Nicolosi, the primary authority onthis topic in the US

Other than the other Booklical references does Soddom and Gomorrah ring a bell? Ouch.How many survived in these wicked cities? They even tried to sodomized the angels coming to help Lott and his fam get the hell out. Big mistake.

How did they die? Imagine fire and hot rocks aka brimstone raining down from the sky? Must have been painful on bare flesh. Everybody was burned alive. Nothing survived. Even Lotts wife was turned into a pillar of salt for looking back in disobeyance.

And the Big Guy had just drowned the whole earth not long earlier too. Millions dead.

People should be allowed to marry - or have intimate relations with - whomever they choose. Even if it's one man and 3 women. As long it is consenting adults, in private, it's no one's business. And in response to another post, I feel no one should be engaging in kissing or public affection in front of children. What would you be saying to that child if the couple who was seen kissing was, say, a 50 year old white man and a 19 year black woman?

Homosexuality was and always has been a sin. Sin doesn't change with the seasons. BUT it's a sin just as lying and stealing and adultery is a sin. But a so called church that says it's ok is very disturbing. But on the other hand most things in church today are disturbing. The Bible is not the focus of church today. It's all about ceremony and rituals.

IMHO A Biblical World View is that homosexuality is sexual immortality just as is adultery, fornication, pedophilia, polygamy, and bestiality. Homosexual activists and their allies know that the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic found in the Bible is the last bastion of defense holding back the widespread embrace of homosexuality throughout culture.

Gay strategists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen , in their landmark homosexual public relations manual published in 1989, boldly encouraged gays to “undermine the moral authority of Bible Believing churches…by portraying such institutions as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology.”1

One of the cases made against homesexuality is based on leviticus 18:22. There are many different translations but they essentially say the same thing :Homosexual sex is a sin or detestable. However, Leviticus 24:45 also declares that it is okay to purchase non-Israelite slaves, which is something that in modern times is no longer debated seriously. How can we throw out certain parts of the bible because "It was different back then", without making the same argument for all of it's laws, such as those regarding homosexuality? Food for thought.